Dhrita-rashtra is a curse by Kunti towards her brother-in-law. Dhrita could mean condemnable or rejectible. But Kauravas had equivalent word, Anga-raja, for Karan. In reality Anga-raja could secondarily mean possessor of sexuality even though Karan was the prince of Anga territory. The name Dhrita-rashtra could also be a word used by sage Vyas; the author of the epic Mahabharata, to describe the evilness in Pandu's elder brother. So Dhrita-rashtra could mean a condemned nation. Dhritra-rashtra was portrayed as blind too.

Krishna preaches extreme asceticism and renunciation to Hindus, particularly those to Brahmins. But that is not what Krishna might have wanted. Rama created Brahmins and Krishna created others, formalizing the caste-system in the process. Caste system is a kind of edge dictated by birth. It does not always uphold socialist values. But Krishna still preached asceticism; a preaching against Hindu capitalism. If consistency were there Krishna would have made the highest caste the most productive and most viable one. But then he sensed that one day Hindus would be in conflict with a religion which would be anti-thesis of Hinduism. Therefore, he preached differences in all aspects of life; in behavior, food and thought etc, believing that Brahmins would be taking the lead in fighting the war against that particular religion.

In
Focus

Krishna says, “And know that the three Gunas, the three states of the soul come from me: peaceful light, restless life, and life-less darkness. But I am not in them: they are in me.” (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 7, Verse 12, translated by Juan Mascaro). Krishna related the peaceful light with the values and virtues of Brahmins. But then by dividing Hindus further, Krishna distanced them from the path of materialism and consumerism.

Rama had no option but to create Brahmin caste and spread his preaching to other texts as he was born too far away from the dawn of consciousness and it was the color consciousness and nationalism of the would-be-Brahmins which could save his preaching. He was the biggest investor and unionist India has ever produced. But he had no option but to destroy himself partly following an audio-instruction. The same was true for Krishna as he had to set his preaching considering the future contest between Hinduism and Islam. The path of Gita might not have been his destined path and he might have changed it following auditory instructions. There are some sound reasons as to why many Western scholars consider the Krishna of Mahabharata and Krishna of Gita to be different. Krishna of Mahabharata is a very practical, pragmatic and materialistic person while Krishna of Gita is a yogi. But in fact both are the same person. Hindus’ mission failed twice?

So where is Pakistan in the whole game? If one tries to understand the meaning of the world Dhrita-rashtra, it could also mean that in high consciousness era Hindus and Muslims were different nationalities and if their majorities lived together that nation would be condemned and doomed to be blind and failed. What it means is that Pandavas and Kauravas could not have lived together peacefully but since India could not be divided by Krishna the latter were doomed to be killed.

It should be noted that before the epic battle Pandavas and Kauravas were given separate states. But then analogy is analogy and it has limitations. The Kauravas were to be defeated and killed in what Hindus interpret it to be the war of righteousness. The simple separation of Pandavas and Kauravas would not have resulted in positivity for Hindus. The defeat and elimination of Kauravas was required to establish the permanent dominance of Brahmins and also to establish caste system formally and to portray Hindus as a group who were to follow more Centrist than Rightist path. Sure, it resulted in religious ideology for Hindus.

The fact is that in high consciousness era, Hindu majority, if separated by Muslim majority geographically, represents different nationality from Muslim majority. Their separation was just otherwise united British India post-1947 would have been condemned to live under civil war. The nation after the post-Soviet era would have splintered and Balkanized into all possibilities. The division of British India was good for both Hindu majority in India and Muslim majority in Pakistan but it was tiring for their respective minorities. For separation of Pakistan, Jinnah should be thanked and Nehru should be credited. The fact is that division of British India was not peaceful as millions died in the tumultuous events that followed the partition. In the great war of Mahabharata tens of thousands of people died.

British acted as honestly as it was possible. The first arrival of Caucasians into the subcontinent imparted color consciousness and created caste system. Mohammad Gauri arrived in India and brutalized Northern Indian Hindus. Caste saved Hindus and the second Caucasian arrival helped them further. It did help bring about the institutionalization and homogenization of the South Asia, created infrastructure and correlated various Indian people imparting them national-consciousness. Their ultimate departure helped the majority of India regained a state they lost a millennium before.

But the British rule was good in the low consciousness era but in high consciousness era it would have been devastating; full of tumultuous events. British left the subcontinent at the best time; Indian state could plan itself and Indian businesses could create businesses for themselves without giving too much to Westerners no matter how inefficient Indian businesses were. It allowed the stakes to be built up. The same was true of Pakistani state and its elites, though not to the same extent.

There is another interpretation of the word Dhrita-rashtra: A DTh RI Nation; implying A Doctor of Theology giving religious instruction to a nation. It should be noted that sage Vyas wrote Mahabharata for people presiding over Vyaspeeth; the seat of high Brahmins succeeding him. The story is far more complex than what people think. But the creation of Pakistan is not only consistent with modern political science theory but also legitimate from Hinduism point of view. What India is to Indians, Pakistan is to Pakistanis. It is equally legitimate though not equal as state. Misrule and problems in governance does not mean that the state has lesser legitimacy. On 23 March, Pakistan will celebrate its Republic day. Majority of Hindus should rationalize and accept Pakistan by this time.

Editorial NOTE: This article is categorized under
Opinion Section. The views expressed in this article are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of
merinews.com. In case you have a opposing view, please click
here to share the same in the comments section.